Is it acceptable to steal something if the act is committed in the name of a good cause? That's exactly what the anti-capitalist militant collective known as Back Alley Robin Hood seems to believe.

On April 30, masked activists linked to the group claimed responsibility for several coordinated thefts targeting grocery stores across Quebec.

Thousands of dollars' worth of food was stolen before it was redistributed during demonstrations in Quebec City on May 1-2. Bags filled with stolen groceries were handed out with the message, “it's free because it's stolen.”

In Montreal, activists even set up a table with a banner saying: “stolen food, help yourself.”

Back Alley Robin Hood says they are targeting what they call the “food mafia,” blaming large grocery chains for the rising cost of living and denouncing corporate profits.

It's true, the cost of living is skyrocketing, and many families are struggling to afford groceries — but does that justify theft?

Go Ad Free

Large grocery chains like Loblaws generally operate on relatively small net-profit margins, with those being used to pay employees, invest back into operations, cover losses from theft, maintain supply chains and keep stores running.

These anti-capitalist anarchists seem less concerned about government monopolies, like Quebec's provincially run liquor store, which sees far higher profit margins than grocery chains.

Apparently, high profits are only a problem when they come from the private sector, not when they come from the state.

The Back Alley Robin Hood collective has been targeting major retailers for months. What might be more surprising is the amount of public support these actions receive, as if crime committed in the name of social justice is somehow more acceptable.

This isn't just about food price; this is about advancing a Marxist, anti-capitalist agenda, one where chaos, disorder and intimidation become normal political tools — and the public seems increasingly willing accept it as long as the target is a large corporation or an ideologically opponent.

But a crime remains a crime, and once society starts tolerating ideological crimes, if often loses control over where the line is drawn.